| (07.26) | Lady in the Water  |
| (05.21) | Da Vinci Code, The  |
| (05.06) | United 93  |
| (02.05) | King Kong  |
| (01.29) | Syriana |
| (01.24) | Walk the Line |
| (01.05) | Chronicles of Narnia, The: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe  |
| (01.02) | Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire |
| (12.30) | Jarhead |
| (12.27) | Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit |
| (12.05) | randy: Polar Express, The |
| (12.02) | Geoff: Polar Express, The |
| (07.27) | Jen: Lady in the Water |
| (07.27) | Justin: Lady in the Water |
| (07.12) | Sarah: Da Vinci Code, The |
| (05.25) | Chris: Da Vinci Code, The |
| (05.25) | Acceler8: Da Vinci Code, The |
| (05.21) | Mr Plow: Da Vinci Code, The |
| (05.11) | Sarah: United 93 |
| (05.11) | Bread: United 93 |
Despite being based on what some people might describe as a silly concept, I find M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable to be a brilliant film.
The story is pretty simple: Bruce Willis plays David Dunn, a guy who may (or may not) be 'unbreakable' -- he's never had a cold, never taken a sick-day off work, and he's recently been involved in a terrible train accident in which he was the sole survivor, walking away without a single scratch on him. Samuel L. Jackson plays Elijah Price, a man whose bones are so brittle that even the smallest bump can cause a break. Price believes that if there are people on earth like him, "at one end of the spectrum", there must be others who exist on the "opposite end", and Price believes that Dunn might be one of these people.
Among others, there are two main things I really love about Unbreakable. The first is the musical score, which is one of my all-time favourites (it's one of the few orchestral scores that I've actually bought on CD). The second is the style and directing of the film. Shyamalan showed that he was a very competent director with his previous film The Sixth Sense, and with Unbreakable I think he proves that he's becoming one of the best in the business. I've read a couple American Cinematographer articles about Unbreakable, and they pretty much confirmed how I feel about the film: every single camera set-up, every single pan or track or zoom means something to Shyamalan because those same things actually mean something to the audience, even if they themselves don't realize it. I wish more directors understood that.
In addition to the music and the direction, I really do love everything else about this movie -- the acting, the humour, the cinematography, etc. etc. It was one of the best movies of 2000.
well, i'm sure a big part of my disappointment with unbreakable came from geoff's overhyping it as the best movie of the year (at the time)...thanks a lot, jerk ;)
aside from that though, i was just really disappointed with the potential that *wasn't* met in the movie...it *could* have been the coolest movie ever, but it fell short and this all came down to what many people might think i would have liked about the story...comics
i think there are a few types of "comicbook movies": something like mallrats or comic book villains, where comics are discussed within the movie; a film like memento, which *felt* like a comicbook on screen (seriously, chris nolan on batman? *SPUZZ*); and then the obvious comics to film like xmen or spidey
since unbreakable was original, it's obviously not in the third catagory, but it tries to balance between the first two...which doesn't work...perhaps it *could* have worked, but it didn't here...the "comic feel" was there, and it seriously ROCKED...i have a lot of respect for shyamalan and he really pulled this aspect off, but every times comics were actually *mentioned* pissed me off
i'll assume that he's a comic fan, at least partly, or else why would he focus on them so much...so why is it that he got things so terribly wrong?? villains have big eyes as windows to their soul (or something like that)?? uh, how about big eyes are more reserved for innocense...hell, i've even read that bigger eyes are universally appealing as far as attraction goes, so why would that suit the bad guy?
bulbous heads??? what the hell?!?!?! aside from modok, who IS basically just a head, or maybe the leader (who has an overgrown brain like those guys in that old star trek episode heh), SHOW ME where this comes up in comics? ...seemed to me like m. night was looking for some subtle descriptions to point out "look kids, it's him! he's the bad guy!!!"
even so, i could live through that, AND put up with my huge pet peeve about what comics look like on tv and film (seriously, HIRE some REAL artists to draw those covers!!), but that ending was just terrible!! and no geoff, that's *not* how comics end...nothing should be wrapped up (hello? give us a reason to pick up the next issue)
i guess my beef with this film is that i AM a comic fan...maybe all these things fit into the schemas of what "regular" people see comics as, and so it worked for the mass audience...but i didn't like that...don't get me wrong, i thought it was a good movie, but it could have (and SHOULD have) been great
Sorry but u guys are both wrong...this movie was not great or good...The only thing it was good at was sucking shit...(perhaps off Randy's camping shorts)...It was so fuckn boring and lame...Why the hell was every scene so slow...There was one scene that ended with Sam Jacksons character just walking away...Why the hell did they show him walking away for like 30 seconds? WALKING AWAY!!! nothing fuckn happened he was just walking away...They could have done that in 5 seconds...
This movie was way over hyped and it didnt deliver...WTF..this director sucks :P haha
TOODLES :D
maybe if he had a rum and coke in his hand when he walked away, it would have been cool
i completely agree that it was overhyped (damn you geoff), and only partly delivered
Yea totaly randy....if he had a rum and coke in hand while walking away, that totally would have changed the scene, and made it at least 123 times better or so...
TOODLEs